+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Other (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-17.html)
+--- Thread: Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum (/thread-3254.html)
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Dawn Meredith - 14-03-2010
I find it interesting that Len is calling to have Peter's posts reinstated.
IS this all just an effort to: 1.Get rid of Peter's VIEWS and 2. Have the entity known as Len Colby now come across as "reasonalble"? Even sympathetic.
Subtle.
I have many good friends in the assassination reasearch world who NEVER post on moderated forums. Many having been burned in the past.
In fact one of my favorite of these people is a person who once had a few "posts" at that forum, under her name and photo and said she never joined. That they were responses to emails then "posted" by someone in control there to make it APPEAR that she was a member. This sort of "honesty" also occurred with two other individuals that I have personal knowledge of: ie emails from both persons saying their "posts" there were NOT posts, they they were responses to email questions and that neither person had ever joined that forum.
The internet can be one very strange place. Deception is so easily accomplished.
Caveat emptor,
Dawn
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2010
David Guyatt Wrote:I see that the usual history modification is beginning to take hold over at the swamp.
To those who understand how history modification happens there, it is simply important to remember that when the record has been totally expunged, one can thereafter state anything they like without fear of being caught in the act of untruth, fact-twisting and numerous other disagreeable, not to say, disreputable expediencies.
Apparently the new approved commissars line is that Peter's expulsion was not about sexual harassment but something altogether else. He acted in a way not suitable for moderators. That from a non moderator. He is also said to have said angry things in PM's. How inconsolable the recipients must have been.
But at least it is a rather unique argument. If one lived in sensory isolation, that is. In my personal experience sufficient nastiness and foulness was on daily public display there, that anything said in PM's would not, could not, be worse.
On the other new accusation I have a dilemma. Presumably, moderators sharing with selected ordinary members intimate "moderators only" information about what other members do is not a sacking offense. Or rather, it is if your not of the ruling clique, but it isn't if you are. And there we have it. A non moderator and non admin speaking authoritatively about a forum he is just an ordinary member of.
I've been looking for a word to describe what I believe has taken place at the swamp, and after much searching I think this may be it:
A right fooking royal, malice driven, stitch up.
If it were done in private, as these things should be done - if for no other reason than that out of common decency and forum dignity - then none of this would've come about. But such is the malice there that the execution was designedly done in public.
What a charming bunch they are.
Being blinded to that url, I'll have to await my daily briefing paper. However, I can state that I didn't start sending any angry PMs to Admin - the angry PMs were first directed at me. Yes, I did defend myself, and was a bit upset at the nature of, tone of, and accusations within said PMs. My response was commensurate to the charges and epithets contained within. I did ask then, and again later, to settle this all out of the public arena - met with deafening silence and venom. As to having done something inmoderator-able, it was never stated. One can only guess [?] that use of the word 'tricksters' was taken by one as the 'step too far'. Tough word, ya gotta admit! It was always the rule that moderators were free to post their thoughts, just as were all members; and were to be judged upon their actions as moderators. I think it was really just a decision made first, based on prejudice, looking desperately for a 'reason' in an attempt to prop-up that decision already made. Apparently, the rationale keeps changing, in an endless search for one that at least seems 'to fit' the drastic actions taken.
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Charles Drago - 14-03-2010
Anyone with reasonable access to examples of how the owners of the Education Forum have lied and otherwise used invective and libel to control content and promote the illusions of open-mindedness and civility who does not conclude that the EF's owners are enemies of the truth and justice is cognitively impaired and/or complict in world-historic crimes.
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - David Guyatt - 14-03-2010
Dawn Meredith Wrote:I find it interesting that Len is calling to have Peter's posts reinstated.
IS this all just an effort to: 1.Get rid of Peter's VIEWS and 2. Have the entity known as Len Colby now come across as "reasonalble"? Even sympathetic.
Subtle.
It won't happen.
Read Lord Simmo's latest script.
A play in several Acts is being performed for the gullible.
---
Pete, even inviting you to become a moderator was, imho, part of a game plan (I'm not saying I was right but I did warn you against agreeing to that offer).
What has now happened was the inevitable outcome of that invitation.
And yes, you're quite right. I has always been their procedure to allow, even encourage, moderators to speak openly. Except when you're being readied for the chop.
There are so many flaws in their changing story which is also absent of internal consistency. But then when you script the acts of the play on the fly, it is inevitable that quite glaring inconsistencies creep in.
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Peter Lemkin - 14-03-2010
I'm left speechless at what is going on there now.....just got my daily or sometimes more than once daily intelligence lowdown. On all that, no comment. Chop, David, what chop?....Now where did I put my head;.....I know it was here a few weeks ago....along with my posts. Ah well.....:ahhhhh:
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Dean Hagerman - 14-03-2010
I dont believe one word that she said
I will keep backing you up no matter what Peter
Even if it means that I am banned from the ED forum, I dont care
Dean
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Charles Drago - 15-03-2010
All,
I've just read the EF post ostensibly written by the "woman" who is/was the accuser in the Lemkin affair.
Based upon a close study of "her" many previous posts, it is my considered and expert opinion that she did NOT write the latest attack on Lemkin.
The idiomatic phrases and sophisticated constructions that appear in that post are unprecedented in her previous offerings -- including private communications "she" sent to me in late 2008.
The game is yet afoot.
For what it's worth, I am all but convinced that "she" has been the bait in a series of classic honeytrap provocations.
All these learned observers of the deep political milieu ... all these sages of the secret world ... and they can't see through the most simple-minded of operations as conducted by the Bonkers Street Irregulars at the EF.
This is pathetic.
Peter ... Sue the mothers!
"C.G." et al ... Give us a little game, for the love of God.
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Magda Hassan - 15-03-2010
Dawn Meredith Wrote:I find it interesting that Len is calling to have Peter's posts reinstated.Yes, Dawn, and I find it most interesting that Len seems to be on some sort of private distribution list that is meant to be for moderators. Last time I checked Len wasn't a moderator. But he is, it seems, given the supposedly private information of the complaint against Peter from the lady in question.
IS this all just an effort to: 1.Get rid of Peter's VIEWS and 2. Have the entity known as Len Colby now come across as "reasonalble"? Even sympathetic.
Subtle.
I have many good friends in the assassination reasearch world who NEVER post on moderated forums. Many having been burned in the past.
In fact one of my favorite of these people is a person who once had a few "posts" at that forum, under her name and photo and said she never joined. That they were responses to emails then "posted" by someone in control there to make it APPEAR that she was a member. This sort of "honesty" also occurred with two other individuals that I have personal knowledge of: ie emails from both persons saying their "posts" there were NOT posts, they they were responses to email questions and that neither person had ever joined that forum.
The internet can be one very strange place. Deception is so easily accomplished.
Caveat emptor,
Dawn
And there are many questions indeed. Other men have contacted me to say that they also received emails from the same person. Has she made allegations about them all? On the other hand I have had no contact from any of the other EF women to say that they have also received emails from her. Some thing to think about there.
The woman in question has sent me an email and asked me to post it here. Peter however has asked me not to. Given that this woman has already posted something almost identical on the EF I am inclined to not post it again here and instead support Peter's wishes as Peter is a member here and a friend. I will respond to it here though since I have had my posting privileges removed on the EF with out explanation.
For point 1.
Yes, Peter contacted you. And why did he have to do that? Why did you not come forward at the time when you saw that your original allegations (the misunderstanding) were being against Peter? You sat there watching Peter being abused and did nothing. So he wrote to you to. You seem to imply that it was a bad thing he write to you. I think it was a bad thing he needed to write to you and you did not come forward earlier.
Point 2
Peter was accused by Walker of being some sort of cyber sex pest based on your original complaint against Peter. Of course Peter would have been mortified to think anything he may have written to you could be construed as such a thing. He hates to upset anyone over anything. He is very sensitive. I have had apologies from Peter as well. Not that he has ever written anything I have taken offense to, he hasn't, but because he thought I might take offense perhaps because he wrote while tired or what he wrote could be taken another way other than how he intended it. Why wouldn't he use that in the title? Seems logical enough to me.
Point 3
Not even sure what you are getting at here so cannot address it fully. Not sure where or why Jack fits into this but of course it was a joke. Peter would never sexually harass anyone.
Point 4
Yes, why did he have to do that? Why did you not do this yourself, unasked, as would have been the right and decent thing to do? You knew it was all unfounded but you said nothing until asked. Unbelievable!
Point 5
Yes it is ridiculous. Why was Walker (and I think JS) using it against Peter? Why indeed? I know you, lady in question, don't have the answer to this one. But others do.
No one is trying to 'scapegoat' you. It seems to me you are as a much abused in this whole charade as Peter is. The trouble lies with the administration of the EF. That is obvious. You are just a tool in abuse. A cowardly bunch of thugs using your 'honour' to hide their deeds behind.
Oh, and by the way, is it Chi or Cigdem? And is it Gole or Eski? They're very particular about having the proper name over there at the EF. I'm sure there is a perfectly good explanation for it, as there is for me. Probably the same one even. Diminutive and marriage. Yes?
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Jack White - 15-03-2010
"Honeytraps" are famed as weapons of intel ops.
I am very suspicious of one introduced to me by a well known
researcher. She sent me highly complimentary emails. She
sent a photo of a gorgeous young woman. She made highly
suggestive statements about admiring me and wanting to
meet me. She asked for a photo. I sent one of me which
is available on the internet. She raved about how handsome
I was, and that it was too bad I was 60 years older than she
is, because she was "in love" with my photo.
I strung her along for a while to see what she was up to.
She finally asked for my mail address so she could send me
a "birthday gift". I then sent her a nice email saying I call the
bomb squad when I receive things from people I do not know
personally...and all I knew about her was a half dozen emails,
and a photo which may or may not be her. She is from a foreign
country, so is not easily verifiable.
I have not heard from her again.
Let the buyer beware.
Jack
Just Was Removed By Walker On Other Forum - Fred Foster - 15-03-2010
Jack White Wrote:"Honeytraps" are famed as weapons of intel ops.
I am very suspicious of one introduced to me by a well known
researcher. She sent me highly complimentary emails. She
sent a photo of a gorgeous young woman. She made highly
suggestive statements about admiring me and wanting to
meet me. She asked for a photo. I sent one of me which
is available on the internet. She raved about how handsome
I was, and that it was too bad I was 60 years older than she
is, because she was "in love" with my photo.
I strung her along for a while to see what she was up to.
She finally asked for my mail address so she could send me
a "birthday gift". I then sent her a nice email saying I call the
bomb squad when I receive things from people I do not know
personally...and all I knew about her was a half dozen emails,
and a photo which may or may not be her. She is from a foreign
country, so is not easily verifiable.
I have not heard from her again.
Let the buyer beware.
Jack
About as believable as your 'analysis' of 'Bowling Ball Man' :hahaha: